HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1984.06.25CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 25, 1984
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was
called to order by Chairman Graham on Monday, June 25, 1984 at
7:31 P.M.
ROT.T. rAT.T.
Present: Commissioners Garcia, Graham, Jacobs, Leahy,
Schwalm, Taylor
Absent: Commissioner Giomi (excused)
Staff Present: City Planner Margaret Monroe; City Engineer Frank C.
Erbacher
MINUTES - The minutes of the June 11, 1984 meeting were unanimously
approved.
AGENDA - Order of the agenda unanimously approved.
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. VARIANCE TO ON-SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITION TO THE
SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1617 LASSEN WAY, BY FRANK AND NORYNE BEST
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a 413 SF bedroom/family room
addition to an existing home which provides only one off-street
parking space rather than two as required. Reference staff report,
6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/30/84; staff
review: City Engineer (6/11/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/14/84)
and Fire Marshal (6/12/84); applicant's letter (5/30/84); aerial
photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed June 15, 1984; and plans date
stamped June 12, 1984. CP discussed details of the request, code
requirements, staff review, applicants' justification for variance.
Affirmative action must be accompanied by findings of fact.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Frank Best, applicant, told
Commission they enjoy their home in this area near Lincoln School,
would like to remain on this site but need the additional space.
There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: do not believe the proposed addition would
affect the neighbors; this is one of two houses on the block which do
not have two car garages; concern about no space behind the front
setback to park a second car, could add another car on the street;
find the plans inadequate; have no objection to the request for an
addition but feel it goes beyond the limits of Commission policy in
granting such variance requests, would prefer redesign; do not think
the addition of another bedroom would make a difference in the number
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes -2- June 25, 1984
of cars in this instance; feel there are exceptional circumstances in
this property and the applicants' need for more space; staff advised
present plans are sufficient for planning consideration, additional
detail will be required for the building permit; possibility of a
tandem garage and effect on lot coverage were discussed.
C. Jacobs found this site typical of many two bedroom homes in Ray
Park; that there are exceptional circumstances in the placement of the
house on the lot; that the addition would not be detrimental to the
neighbors nor would it adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan
of the city. She moved for approval of the variance; second
C. Leahy. Comment on the motion: would prefer redesign and a
continuance for two weeks, so will vote no. Motion approved on a 4-2
roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Taylor dissenting, C. Giomi absent.
Appeal procedures were advised.
2. SPECIAL PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 572 SF GARAGE AT 2209 HALE DRIVE,
BY JOHN UNDERDAHL
CP Monroe reviewed this request to construct an oversized garage with
windows within 10 feet of property line. Reference staff report,
6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/17/84;
applicant's letter, May 17, 1984; staff review: City Engineer
(5/29/84), Chief Building Inspector (6/4/84) and Fire Marshal
(6/5/84); study meeting minutes, June 11, 1984; 6/15/84 letter from
the applicant; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing mailed 6/15/84;
and plans date stamped May 17, 1984. CP discussed details of the
application, code requirements, staff review, applicant's letter and
reasons for the request, study meeting questions. One condition was
suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. John Underdahl, applicant,
stated windows could be moved 10' from property line; he would like to
protect dutch elm tree in the backyard and provide 7.0' for each car
parked in the new garage as well as space for a work area with wash
basin; the vent was included since there had been one in the old
garage. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was
closed.
Commission discussion: placement of the windows; lot: coverage; there
is a deep backyard although the area may look impacted from the
street; new garage will allow space to store applicant's boat and
allow him work area; width of garage and applicant"s desire to
preserve trees in the backyard; would like to see the windows
eliminated and have a concern about the vent.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit with the following
conditions: (1) that the conditions of the City Engineer's memo of May
29, 1984, the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 4, 1984 and the
Fire Marshal's memo of June 5, 1984 be met; (2) that. the windows be
moved 10' from the property line; and (3) that the vent be installed
according to code. Second C. Leahy; motion approved 6-0 on roll call
vote, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 25, 1984
3. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A CREDIT UNION BRANCH OFFICE IN AN
EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 840 HINCKLEY
ROAD, BY AMFAC MAINLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
CP Monroe reviewed this request to allow a credit union in an existing
office building in the M-1 zone. Reference staff report, 6/25/84;
Project Application & CEQA Assessment received 5/8/84; letter from
Donna Bosser, Amfac Credit Union, April 10, 1984; site drawing
received May 8, 1984; staff review: Chief Building Inspector (6/1/84),
Fire Marshal (5/15/84) and City Engineer (5/18/84); City Attorney's
April 6, 1984 letter to California Credit Union League; City
Attorney's letter of April 16, 1984 to Donna Bosser, President, Amfac
Mainland FCU; June 11, 1984 study meeting minutes; :Bosser letter to
Towber received May 8, 1984; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing
mailed June 15, 1984; Bosser letter to Towber, June 18, 1984. CP
discussed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter,
study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for
consideration at the public hearing.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Donna Bosser, applicant,
addressed Commission: estimated number of Amfac employees in the M-1
District area is 276, approximately 100 of these employees are members
of the credit union; most members do not come to the 840 Hinckley
office, business is transacted by payroll deduction or automatic
deposit; Amfac runs courier service between the different locations;
most business is by mail or phone; have not impacted traffic or
parking in the area. There were no audience comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: applicant uses leased area within the existing
building; on-site parking appears to meet code; code requires a
special permit for this use in the M-1 district; does not appear to be
a business that would impact the area.
C. Jacobs moved for approval of this special permit with the following
conditions: (1) that the Amfac Credit Union shall operate as outlined
in Donna Bosser's letter of April 10, 1984; and (2) that this use
permit be reviewed for compliance with the operation as outlined in
Ms. Bosser's letter in 18 months time (December, 1985). Second
C. Garcia; motion approved on a 6-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures
were advised.
4. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CLASSES AT 824 EDGEHILL DRIVE IN THE C-2
DISTRICT, BY DAVID AND SHARON CHEEK
5. PARKING VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A PIANO CLASSROOM/STUDIO
AT 824 EDGEHILL DRIVE WHICH PROVIDES NO OFF-STREET PARKING
CP Monroe reviewed this request to hold classes in the C-2 zone and to
allow a four space parking variance to build a new commercial
structure for use as a piano studio. Reference staff report,
6/25/84; study meeting minutes, June 11, 1984; Project Application &
CEQA Assessment received 4/23/84; applicant's letter, April 23, 1984;
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes -4- June 25, 1984
additional information on use/traffic received May 9, 1984; trip ends
to/from site date stamped March 14, 1984; May 28, 1984 letter from
Olga Chambers, landlord, 859 California Drive; staff review: Chief
Building Inspector (5/29/84 and 5/11/84), City Engineer (5/18/84),
Fire Marshal (5/9/84); aerial photograph; letters from the applicant
received June 18, 1984; petition in support received June 15, 1984;
letter in support from William R. Ward, Director of Music, United
Methodist Church dated June 16, 1984; and plans date stamped May 24,
1984. CP discussed details of the request, code requirements, staff
review, applicant's description of the business and justification for
the variance, study meeting questions, staff comment. Three
conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing.
Letters in support were noted as follows: Fred Wm. Heron, principal,
McKinley School (June 18, 1984); Priscilla Storms, teacher, Burlingame
School District (June 21, 1984); Philip F. Acker, Acker & Son, owner
of properties at 820 Edgehill Drive and 821 California Drive (June 22,
1984); Mary Harrell, resident at 839 Edgehill Drive (received June 25,
1984).
Discussion: entire block between Edgehill and California Drive is
zoned C-2 commercial, there is a commercial use immediately adjacent
with a driveway off Edgehill, auto repair would be allowed in this
area, there is no space on site for cars to turn around, possibility
of constructing the studio attached to the house, required covered
parking will be provided on site for the residential structure.
Sharon Cheek, applicant, discussed her proposal: has no desire to
change the residential character of Edgehill; most of the students are
dropped off and picked up; has been renting space and teaching piano
in this same block for eight years; her studio provides many of the
services which have been cut back in the schools; students perform in
the schools and provide musicians for several churches; if this
building were an office structure it would require less parking than
the four space requirement for classes as determined by staff; she
teaches during the school year with some private summer lessons; hours
are 3:00 PM to 8:30 PM, at the end of the business day.
Speaking to the variance request, Mrs. Cheek stated the rental of the
studio she now uses is high, it would be a loss of income if she were
unable to build on this property which was purchased in 1983; she
would like to raise a family and locating the studio on the same site
as her home would be ideal; regarding public safety, she teaches
private lessons and general classes which include many of the same
students, so times are staggered, there are 50-100 parking spaces
across the street and two crosswalks within 100 feet of the site;
doubt there would be a parking problem as a very small portion of the
students drive themselves; businesses in the block have not complained
nor have tenants in the building where she presently teaches; there
are not many locations in the city where she can teach and many of
those are not financially feasible.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. Those speaking in favor:
Priscilla Storms, 1232 Floribunda Avenue: this is an opportunity for
the community, a young contributing citizen who will enrich the city;
Burlingame —5— June 25, 1984
Planning Commission Minutes
Catherine Depew, 1427 Paloma Avenue: have been a piano student since
five years of age, parents drop me off and pick me up, do not need
parking space; Judy Michaelian: have been driving my sons to lessons
for 2/3 years, once a year might park and go inside, applicant is
outstanding member of the community and outstanding teacher; Judith
Kell, 1257 Cabrillo Avenue: son is a student, drop him off and pick
him up, seldom park and wait. There were no further audience comments
in favor. In opposition, Lorine Gandolfi, 825 Edgehill Drive
expressed concern about parking on Edgehill; have no objection to
parking on California Drive but because of apartment buildings there
are parking problems presently on Edgehill. Applicant comment: would
not want my students to park on Edgehill either. There were no
further audience comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is a good land use, a cultural addition to
the city; parking is an important aspect but don't believe this use
will have an adverse impact; variance goes with the land, if this
structure were converted to another permitted use the variance would
go with it; possibility/advisability of a condition prohibiting
parking on Edgehill; feel this is a compatible use for the area and
represents an opportunity for the community.
C. Taylor moved that the application for a special permit for classes
in the C-2 district be approved with the following conditions: (1)
that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's memo of May 11,
1984, the City Engineer's memo of May 18, 1984 and the Fire Marshal's
memo of May 9, 1984 be met; (2) that the piano studio be operated as
described in Sharon Cheek's letters of April 23, 1984 and May 9, 1984;
(3) that the new construction be separated from the existing
residential structure and new carport on the lot by at least four
feet; and (4) that no student parking be allowed on Edgehill Drive.
Second C. Jacobs. Responding to Commission question about viability
of the business applicant advised her net profit would be about the
same the first few years if this proposed studio is approved. Motion
approved on a 6-0 roll call vote, C. Giomi absent.
C. Taylor incorporated into the record the comments of Mrs. Storms and
the applicant's April 23, 1984 letter to support findings that there
are exceptional circumstances, that the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the owner, that it
would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
injurious to the neighbors and that it would not adversely affect the
comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Taylor moved for approval
of the variance request; second C. Jacobs. C. Schwalm commented that
loss of income and raising a family are not acceptable reasons for
granting a variance; he found exceptional circumstances in the way the
property is laid out, this is an unusual lot, and the proposed
business is a small operation which would not adversely affect the
neighborhood. Motion approved 5-1 on roll call vote, C. Graham
dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
Recess 8:50 P.M.; reconvene 9:02 P.M.
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes —6— June 25, 1984
6. USE DETERMINATION FOR THE SECOND FLOOR OF 205 PARK ROAD, ZONED C-1,
SUB -AREA B. BY JOSEPH KARP
CP Monroe reviewed this request that the Planning Commission review
staff's determination that the vacant second floor of the building at
205 Park Road cannot be used again as office until the off-street
parking required for the vacant area is provided. Reference -staff
report, 6/25/84; Project Application & CEQA Assessment received
5/21/84; letter from David C. Carr, applicant's attorney (May 16,
1984); staff review: City Engineer (5/29/84), Chief Building Inspector
(6/4/84), Fire Marshal (5/30/84); memo from the City Attorney
(6/19/84); letter from Andrew P. Studdert, Bay View Federal Savings
(May 17, 1984); study meeting minutes (June 11, 1984); basement floor
plan, 205 Park/1310 Howard; aerial photograph; Notice of Hearing
mailed June 15, 1984; staff report with attachments, special permit
application, Bay View Federal, 4/27/81, Item No. 1; Karp letter to
Towber, June 19, 1984 with attachments; and plans date stamped June
19, 1984.
CP discussed the applicant's request, code regulations relating to the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and to the nonconforming section of
the code, staff review, City Attorney's memo reviewing the issue,
letter from the applicant's attorney, study meeting questions. City
staff is requesting clear direction from the Commission regarding
policy when vacancy results in nonconforming parking in Sub -Areas A
and B. Discussion: Council's amendment of the zoning code in
February, 1982 establishing Sub -Areas A and B in the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area (BACA); staff's determination that the second floor of
the Bay View Federal building at 205 Park cannot be used again as
office until the required off-street parking for the vacant floor area
is provided; staff advised this interpretation would apply if only one
office on a second floor were vacant for more than six months.
Chm. Graham opened the public hearing. David C. Carr, attorney
representing the applicant, addressed Commission, noting that the
applicant, Joseph Karp, is now the owner of this property. Attorney
Carr's comments: Code Sec. 25.50.040 (nonconforming section) was
amended into the code in 1962, in 1982 nothing was changed with regard
to the six month provision; applicant's request is merely a
determination of the proper interpretation of the six month rule as it
applies to this building; find staff's interpretation to be narrow and
a very conservative view of this situation; nobody disputes that
office is a permitted use, but the city contends it is nonconforming
on the basis of lack of off-street parking. Code Sec. 25.70.040,
added in 1982, sets out exceptions and exemptions, structures which
become nonconforming as a result of the adoption of parking
requirements may be remodeled so long as the gross floor area is not
enlarged; no time limit was imposed on vacancy for remodeling, so this
would be true even after 18 months vacancy; since remodeling started
when Bay View took over this site, it could be contended that
remodeling is not yet completed on the second floor.
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes -7- June 25, 1984
Attorney Carr contended Code Sec. 25.50.040 is not applicable,
and questioned whether the building is nonconforming legally; the
nonconforming section applies when any building or land is not used
for six months, the definition of building in the code is "any
structure . . .", it would appear to refer to the entire structure at
the corner of Park and Howard. City Attorney states you cannot look
at the statute literally; however, if the city had intended to look at
parts of buildings they could have said so in the statute, this
legislation seems to refer to an entire structure. If one office
becomes vacant for six months, or a room or whole floor used for
storage for six months, can that portion of the structure be
considered abandoned.
Staff treats parking requirements as a part of the use of the
property; in that case this building over the years has been
nonconforming because of no parking. The second floor of this office
building has been used for office use continually to the present time,
the evidence shows that utilities have been on continuously, the area
has been used by Bay View to store certain materials; action has been
taken to comply with city requirements, a stairway was built, the area
has been advertised as rental property, Bay View did not lock the
doors, board up the stairway or turn off the light or heat.
We contend if vacancy occurs, so long as action is not taken to
eliminate the possibility of rental use, that use continues. Portions
of other downtown buildings were vacant for even longer periods of
time, but permitted rental office later. We feel s'taff's
interpretation would be prejudicial to the rights of the property
owner and would establish a dangerous precedent for the city. The
statute refers to an entire structure or parcel of land, it does not
apply to a portion of the building.
Audience comments: Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue: urge a change in
staff's manner of determination so that after a vacancy of more than
six months an office would be allowed without providing parking.
Joseph Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, applicant: this interpretation
not only pertains to office space above the first floor in Sub -Area B
but also pertains to retail stores in Sub -Area B; if a store were
vacant for six months or more on Howard, that store! would be
considered nonconforming and not allowed to be occupied without
providing parking; am concerned about what happens in downtown
Burlingame and feel the present interpretation of the code will harm
the economics of the community. There were no further audience
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment/discussion: find staff's view of this matter
correct, staff needs to take a narrow view but don't think they want
to discourage usage; the way to get more parking is add to the
assessment district, increase the parking, public and private; parking
is a condition of the land use but the ordinance is not clear as far
as nonconformity is concerned, unreasonable to require this particular
landowner to provide more parking;
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes -8- June 25, 1984
if the code is interpreted to refer to an entire structure Burlingame
could end up a ghost city, perhaps each case should be heard on its
own merits and abandonment found when the major portion of the
building is vacant; city was not trying to take property away from any
individual, intent was to enact an ordinance so that this type of
situation could be handled through the variance process, it was an
attempt to address parking problems, would not want staff to be more
liberal in its interpretation, city wants to retain control; think
intent of the ordinance was for any new construction or change in use
to provide parking, would support a broader interpretation of the
code; practically impossible to provide parking downtown, support
staff's interpretation and the variance procedure; :Find staff's
interpretation too narrow, the code talks about a whole building or
whole parcel of land, at least one-half of this building has never
been abandoned; code isn't clear, this case isn't clear, to make the
applicant seek a parking variance seems to be a waste of time, suggest
clarification of the code so that in future staff only bring in cases
where an overwhelming part of the structure is abandoned; think it's
clear the ordinance is not referring to portions of a building, it is
referring to an entire building.
C. Taylor moved that Commission find Code Sec. 25.50.040 applies to an
entire building rather than to a portion of a building. Second C.
Jacobs. Comment on the motion: cannot support reference to an entire
building, should refer to the major part of a building, a small
portion could be kept in use by willful intent of the owners; don't
think motion is taking care of what Commission is here to determine, a
use determination. Motion defeated on a 3-3 roll call vote, Cers
Garcia, Schwalm and Graham, dissenting, C. Giomi absent.
Following this action Attorney Carr requested that Commission act on
the applicant's petition for a use determination on this particular
piece of property, for the proposed use of the second floor of this
building. C. Jacobs moved to allow office use on the second floor of
the building at 205 Park Road, based on the finding it should not be
considered abandoned under Code Sec. 25.50.040. Second C. Leahy;
motion approved on a 4-2 roll call vote, Cers Garcia and Graham
dissenting, C. Giomi absent. Appeal procedures were advised.
ITEMS FOR STUDY
7. FENCE EXCEPTION - 1457 BELLEVUE AVENUE, UNIT NO. 3
Set for hearing July 9, 1984.
8. VARIANCE - 112 ANITA ROAD
Set for hearing July 9, 1984.
9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW AN OFFICE ADDITION - 40 EDWARDS COURT
Set for hearing July 9, 1984.
Burlingame
Planning Commission Minutes -9- June 25, 1984
10. REVIEW OF THE REMAINDER OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN BURLINGAME AND DISCUSSION OF A MIXED
USE DESIGNATION
CP Monroe discussed mixed use which can be either vertical or
horizontal: definition, advantages, problems and suggested wording for
an amendment to the text of the General Plan. Following Commission
discussion it was decided to continue mixed use consideration.
Staff's 15 proposed amendments to the general plan were set for public
hearing July 9, 1984. This hearing will be duly noticed in a paper of
general circulation as well as to all property owners affected
directly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Towber memo to City Planner, subject special permit for psychological
counseling at 1214 Donnelly Avenue.
PLANNER REPORT
- CP reviewed Council actions at its June 18, 1984 :regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
A. M. (Bill) Garcia
Vice Chairman